Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, I reintroduce the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, a bipartisan bill which will allow judges at all federal court levels to open their courtrooms to television cameras and radio broadcasts.

Openness in our courts improves the public's understanding of what goes on there. Our judicial system is a secret to many people across the country. Letting the sun shine in on federal courtrooms will give Americans an opportunity to better understand the judicial process. Courts are the bedrock of the American justice system. Allowing greater access to our courts will inspire faith in and restore appreciation for our judges who pledge equal and impartial justice for all.

For decades, states such as my home state of Iowa have allowed cameras in their courtrooms with great results. As a matter of fact, only the District of Columbia prohibits trial and appellate court coverage entirely. Nineteen States allow news coverage in most courts; 16 allow coverage with slight restrictions; and the remaining 15 allow coverage with stricter rules.

The bill I am introducing today, along with Senator Schumer and five other cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, including Judiciary Chairman Leahy, will greatly improve public access to Federal courts. It lets Federal judges open their courtrooms to television cameras and other electronic media.

The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act is full of provisions that ensure that the introduction of cameras and other broadcasting devices into the courtrooms goes as smoothly as it has at the state level. First, the presence of the cameras in Federal trial and appellate courts is at the sole discretion of the judges--it is not mandatory. The bill also provides a mechanism for Congress to study the effects of this legislation on our judiciary before making this change permanent through a 3 year sunset provision. The bill also protects the privacy and safety of non-party witnesses by giving them the right to have their faces and voices obscured. Finally, it includes a provision to protect the due process rights of any party, and prohibits the televising of jurors.

We need to open the doors and let the light shine in on the Federal Judiciary. This bill improves public access to and therefore understanding of our federal courts. It has safety provisions to ensure that the cameras won't interfere with the proceedings or with the safety or due process of anyone involved in the cases. Our states have allowed news coverage of their courtrooms for decades. It is time we join them.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I reintroduce the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, a bipartisan bill which will allow judges at all federal court levels to open their courtrooms to television cameras and radio broadcasts.

Openness in our courts improves the public's understanding of what goes on there. Our judicial system is a secret to many people across the country. Letting the sun shine in on federal courtrooms will give Americans an opportunity to better understand the judicial process. Courts are the bedrock of the American justice system. Allowing greater access to our courts will inspire faith in and restore appreciation for our judges who pledge equal and impartial justice for all.

For decades, states such as my home state of Iowa have allowed cameras in their courtrooms with great results. As a matter of fact, only the District of Columbia prohibits trial and appellate court coverage entirely. Nineteen States allow news coverage in most courts; 16 allow coverage with slight restrictions; and the remaining 15 allow coverage with stricter rules.

The bill I am introducing today, along with Senator Schumer and five other cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, including Judiciary Chairman Leahy, will greatly improve public access to Federal courts. It lets Federal judges open their courtrooms to television cameras and other electronic media.

The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act is full of provisions that ensure that the introduction of cameras and other broadcasting devices into the courtrooms goes as smoothly as it has at the state level. First, the presence of the cameras in Federal trial and appellate courts is at the sole discretion of the judges--it is not mandatory. The bill also provides a mechanism for Congress to study the effects of this legislation on our judiciary before making this change permanent through a 3 year sunset provision. The bill also protects the privacy and safety of non-party witnesses by giving them the right to have their faces and voices obscured. Finally, it includes a provision to protect the due process rights of any party, and prohibits the televising of jurors.

We need to open the doors and let the light shine in on the Federal Judiciary. This bill improves public access to and therefore understanding of our federal courts. It has safety provisions to ensure that the cameras won't interfere with the proceedings or with the safety or due process of anyone involved in the cases. Our states have allowed news coverage of their courtrooms for decades. It is time we join them.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, today the Senate will confirm two more of President Obama's judicial nominees. With this action, we are filling two seats which have been declared judicial emergencies. I am pleased we are moving forward with these important positions.

I agree with the chairman's recent editorial and remarks he has made that we have an opportunity to turn the page and work together in a spirit of bipartisanship and civility. I do not view it as a productive effort to continue with the finger pointing and the negative back and forth regarding the previous pace or outcome of judicial nominations. Unfortunately, that rhetoric has frequently overshadowed the debate on the qualifications of particular nominees.

I and my Republican colleagues have been very cooperative in taking action on the President's nominees. During this Congress, the President has nominated 50 individuals to the Federal judiciary. This Congress has been in session for approximately 1 month. In this brief time, we have taken positive action, in one form or another, on nearly half of those nominees. With today's votes, we will have confirmed 5 nominees. If this is not cooperation, I do not know what is.

Furthermore, we have seen a high level of bipartisanship with regard to President Obama's confirmed nominees. For President Obama's confirmed district judge nominees, 94 percent of those confirmations were by unanimous votes. Only 59 percent of President Bush's confirmed district court nominees were afforded that same level of bipartisanship. So I think it is fair to say that we are cooperating in a bipartisan manner, and in a deliberate pace.

I am working with the chairman to ensure nominees are afforded a fair but thorough process, in a timely manner. I have appreciated the chairman's courtesy as we have worked together to set schedules and agendas. As we do so, I assure my colleagues that I will not falter on ensuring each nominee is properly and thoroughly evaluated.

We are acting to reduce the judiciary vacancy rate. There are currently 99 vacancies in the Federal courts. However, it is remarkable to me that more than half of those vacancies, 52 seats, have yet to receive a nomination. Furthermore, 25 of the 46 seats deemed to be judicial emergencies do not have nominees. It is unfair to blame Republicans for any delays with these vacancies. It is impossible to fill seats when a nominee has not been named. It is the responsibility of the President to send to the Senate consensus nominees for these positions.

Let me say a few words about the nominees who are scheduled to have votes today. I thank our leadership for the reasonable arrangement that was reached to consider these nominations.

First, Justice James E. Graves has been nominated to be a circuit judge for the Fifth Circuit. He received his B.A. from Millsaps College, his J.D. and an M.P.A. from Syracuse University.

Justice Graves comes to the Federal bench with extensive experience in the legal field. He was a staff attorney for the Central Mississippi Legal Services for 3 years before moving into private practice. Justice Graves also spent time, first as a counsel, then as a chief legal counsel, in the office of the Mississippi attorney general. Justice Graves left the Office of the Attorney General to become director of the Mississippi Department of Human Services' Child Support Enforcement Division.

Justice Graves also has considerable judicial experience. He was appointed to Mississippi Circuit Court judge in 1991 and was re-elected twice. Since 2001, Justice Graves has served on the Mississippi Supreme Court and has authored 151 majority opinions for the court and 92 concurring or dissenting opinions. The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated him ``Qualified.''

I also rise in support of Judge Edward Davila to be U.S. district judge for the Northern District of California. With today's vote, we will have confirmed 7 of President Obama's nominees to the district courts of California. Judge Davila received his B.A. from California State University, San Diego and his J.D. from University of California's Hastings College of the Law. A majority of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary rated him ``Qualified.''

Judge Davila began his career at the Santa Clara County Public Defender before entering private practice. He represented criminal defendants in State and Federal courts. In August 2001, Governor Gray Davis appointed Judge Davila to the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, a trial court of general jurisdiction. Judge Davila was re-elected without opposition twice.

We are making good progress in considering judicial nominations. I am pleased the chairman and I have been able to move forward. We are filling judicial vacancies, with a particular focus on judicial emergencies. We are working in a manner that treats each nominee in a fair manner and permits each Senator to thoroughly review the qualifications of each nominee.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, we often use the metaphor of credit cards to talk about uncontrolled government spending, but in some cases, wasteful government spending is quite literally enabled by the use of charge cards in the hands of government bureaucrats. That is why I am reintroducing the Government Charge Card Abuse Prevention Act. This legislation will ensure that Federal departments and agencies have in place, and keep in place, the kinds of safeguards necessary to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse with government issued charge

cards. We have made a lot of progress since I first started shining the spotlight on this issue with the help of the Government Accountability Office, GAO. This legislation will secure the gains we have made to prevent any backsliding while adding in extra mechanisms to prevent and detect misuse of government charge cards.

In 1998, the General Service Administration, GSA, entered into a contract with a set of commercial banks to utilize charge cards, not unlike those used by businesses large and small and millions of consumers worldwide. This is called the SmartPay program. These government charge cards include government purchase cards, which are used for acquisition of commercial goods and services by agencies and paid directly by the agency, and government travel cards, which are used to pay for individual government travel expenses and issued in the name of individual government employees.

Government charge cards were intended as a low cost method to streamline government acquisition and travel processes. The whole idea was to adopt the best practices of the commercial sector. In the business sector, charge cards have been a success. They save time and money. The main reason they work so well is because the control environment in the private sector is rock solid and accountability is a fact of life. When a business is spending its own money, it is going to be sure that it accounts for every penny or it won't stay in business. As a result, corporate America, if an employee is caught abusing a card, they'll lose it or get fired.

It is certainly a good idea for government to learn lessons from the business sector. However, there are certain fundamental differences between the private sector and the governmental sector that call for extra vigilance, mainly the fact that government spends other people's money. Human nature being what it is, most people are not nearly as careful spending other people's money as they would be spending their own.

Sure enough, when the SmartPay program was first implemented, Federal departments and agencies did not take near the care that a private business would when handing out company charge cards. When I started looking into this with the GAO, we uncovered blatant examples of wasteful spending. Government employees were using their government- issued charge cards to bypass any authorization and approval procedures and purchase items that had nothing to with their official duties. We are talking about LA-Z-Boy reclining chairs, kitchen appliances, and even a sapphire ring being paid for with government purchase cards, and with the American taxpayer paying the bill no questions asked.

Government travel cards have been used for gambling, sporting events, concerts, cruises, and even gentlemen's clubs and legalized brothels. While travel cards are not paid directly with taxpayers' money like purchase cards, failure by employees to repay these cards results in the loss of millions of dollars in rebates to the Federal Government. Also, when credit card companies are forced to charge off bad debt, they raise interest rates and fees on everyone else.

A series of GAO reports over the last decade have identified an inadequate and inconsistent control environment across numerous Federal agencies with respect to both government purchase cards and government travel cards. This has led to millions of dollars in taxpayers' money wasted. In some cases purchases were outright fraudulent, and others were of questionable need or were unnecessarily expensive. In each report it has issued, the GAO has made recommendations about what kind of controls need to be implemented to prevent such abuses from occurring in the future. In many cases, the same controls were often missing or inadequate, and therefore the same recommendations are repeated in report after report. One agency would promise to clean up its act, but then we would find the exact same problems with another. That is why I worked to develop legislation that would incorporate GAO's recommendations regarding some of the most basic controls needed in every agency to prevent abuse of government charge cards.

As a result of the pressure applied by the relentless oversight of Congress, the GAO, and agency Inspectors General, we have seen some progress toward establishing a better control environment. In fact, the Office of Management and Budget has issued to Federal agencies a circular that seeks to bring about many of the controls we identified. However, this progress would not have been possible without the continual spotlight being shone on the problem and the threat of congressional action.

In addition to requiring the most important internal controls across the government, the bill requires all Federal agencies to establish penalties for violations, including dismissal when circumstances warrant. This is necessary not only so that taxpayers know that those who would squander their money are held accountable, but also to send a message to other government employees that such behavior will not be tolerated. The bill also increases oversight by providing that each agency Inspector General periodically conduct risk assessments and audits to identify fraud and improper use of government charge cards. We have had great success working with Inspectors General using techniques like data mining to reveal instances of improper use of government charge cards. Having this information on an ongoing basis will help maintain and strengthen a rigorous system of internal controls to prevent future instances of waste, fraud, and abuse with government charge cards.

This legislation has been revised a number of times with considerable input from the GAO as well as the Inspector General community and other stakeholders. In crafting the very carefully thought out bill before us today, I have appreciated the help and support provided by Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins, who have again joined me as original cosponsors of this bill. The version I have introduced today is the same bill that passed the Senate in the last Congress and I look forward to seeing it pass both houses of Congress and enacted into law in the very near future. That day, the American taxpayers will be able to rest just a little easier knowing that at least one avenue to potentially waste their hard earned money has been blocked.

Mr. President, we often use the metaphor of credit cards to talk about uncontrolled government spending, but in some cases, wasteful government spending is quite literally enabled by the use of charge cards in the hands of government bureaucrats. That is why I am reintroducing the Government Charge Card Abuse Prevention Act. This legislation will ensure that Federal departments and agencies have in place, and keep in place, the kinds of safeguards necessary to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse with government issued charge

cards. We have made a lot of progress since I first started shining the spotlight on this issue with the help of the Government Accountability Office, GAO. This legislation will secure the gains we have made to prevent any backsliding while adding in extra mechanisms to prevent and detect misuse of government charge cards.

In 1998, the General Service Administration, GSA, entered into a contract with a set of commercial banks to utilize charge cards, not unlike those used by businesses large and small and millions of consumers worldwide. This is called the SmartPay program. These government charge cards include government purchase cards, which are used for acquisition of commercial goods and services by agencies and paid directly by the agency, and government travel cards, which are used to pay for individual government travel expenses and issued in the name of individual government employees.

Government charge cards were intended as a low cost method to streamline government acquisition and travel processes. The whole idea was to adopt the best practices of the commercial sector. In the business sector, charge cards have been a success. They save time and money. The main reason they work so well is because the control environment in the private sector is rock solid and accountability is a fact of life. When a business is spending its own money, it is going to be sure that it accounts for every penny or it won't stay in business. As a result, corporate America, if an employee is caught abusing a card, they'll lose it or get fired.

It is certainly a good idea for government to learn lessons from the business sector. However, there are certain fundamental differences between the private sector and the governmental sector that call for extra vigilance, mainly the fact that government spends other people's money. Human nature being what it is, most people are not nearly as careful spending other people's money as they would be spending their own.

Sure enough, when the SmartPay program was first implemented, Federal departments and agencies did not take near the care that a private business would when handing out company charge cards. When I started looking into this with the GAO, we uncovered blatant examples of wasteful spending. Government employees were using their government- issued charge cards to bypass any authorization and approval procedures and purchase items that had nothing to with their official duties. We are talking about LA-Z-Boy reclining chairs, kitchen appliances, and even a sapphire ring being paid for with government purchase cards, and with the American taxpayer paying the bill no questions asked.

Government travel cards have been used for gambling, sporting events, concerts, cruises, and even gentlemen's clubs and legalized brothels. While travel cards are not paid directly with taxpayers' money like purchase cards, failure by employees to repay these cards results in the loss of millions of dollars in rebates to the Federal Government. Also, when credit card companies are forced to charge off bad debt, they raise interest rates and fees on everyone else.

A series of GAO reports over the last decade have identified an inadequate and inconsistent control environment across numerous Federal agencies with respect to both government purchase cards and government travel cards. This has led to millions of dollars in taxpayers' money wasted. In some cases purchases were outright fraudulent, and others were of questionable need or were unnecessarily expensive. In each report it has issued, the GAO has made recommendations about what kind of controls need to be implemented to prevent such abuses from occurring in the future. In many cases, the same controls were often missing or inadequate, and therefore the same recommendations are repeated in report after report. One agency would promise to clean up its act, but then we would find the exact same problems with another. That is why I worked to develop legislation that would incorporate GAO's recommendations regarding some of the most basic controls needed in every agency to prevent abuse of government charge cards.

As a result of the pressure applied by the relentless oversight of Congress, the GAO, and agency Inspectors General, we have seen some progress toward establishing a better control environment. In fact, the Office of Management and Budget has issued to Federal agencies a circular that seeks to bring about many of the controls we identified. However, this progress would not have been possible without the continual spotlight being shone on the problem and the threat of congressional action.

In addition to requiring the most important internal controls across the government, the bill requires all Federal agencies to establish penalties for violations, including dismissal when circumstances warrant. This is necessary not only so that taxpayers know that those who would squander their money are held accountable, but also to send a message to other government employees that such behavior will not be tolerated. The bill also increases oversight by providing that each agency Inspector General periodically conduct risk assessments and audits to identify fraud and improper use of government charge cards. We have had great success working with Inspectors General using techniques like data mining to reveal instances of improper use of government charge cards. Having this information on an ongoing basis will help maintain and strengthen a rigorous system of internal controls to prevent future instances of waste, fraud, and abuse with government charge cards.

This legislation has been revised a number of times with considerable input from the GAO as well as the Inspector General community and other stakeholders. In crafting the very carefully thought out bill before us today, I have appreciated the help and support provided by Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins, who have again joined me as original cosponsors of this bill. The version I have introduced today is the same bill that passed the Senate in the last Congress and I look forward to seeing it pass both houses of Congress and enacted into law in the very near future. That day, the American taxpayers will be able to rest just a little easier knowing that at least one avenue to potentially waste their hard earned money has been blocked.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, in addition to my support for Judge Saldana and Mr. Holmes, I rise in support of Marco A. Hernandez to be U.S. district judge for the District of Oregon.

I am pleased the Senate is finally turning to this nomination. This is the third Congress to consider Mr. Hernandez's nomination. President Bush nominated Judge Hernandez to this seat in the 110th Congress. Unfortunately, his nomination stalled in the Judiciary Committee, although he had the full support of every Republican on the committee. After pending for over 5 months with no action, his nomination, at that time, was returned to the President.

This vacancy has been designated a judicial emergency. Therefore, I would have expected his nomination to have been made very early in the 111th Congress. However, it was not sent to the Senate until July of last year. Because of that delayed nomination, the Senate was unable to complete action on the nomination in that Congress. At the close of the 111th Congress, the nomination was again returned to the President.

Mr. Hernandez has been rated ``qualified'' by the American Bar Association. He received his B.A. from Western Oregon State College and his J.D. from the University of Washington School of Law.

After graduating from law school, he served as an attorney for Oregon Legal Services, where he represented migrant farmworkers. He later joined the Washington County district attorney's office as a deputy district attorney.

Mr. Hernandez is a fine nominee under President Bush's standards but also a fine nominee under President Obama's standards. I am pleased this nomination is finally before the Senate. I am, however, disappointed that we have a vacancy that could have been filled over 2 years ago. With our vote today, the President can fill this judicial emergency seat with a qualified nominee.

Mr. President, I also support the nomination of Diana Saldana to be a U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Texas. She has the support of both home State Senators who spoke very highly of her at her September 29, 2010, nomination hearing.

Judge Saldana received a BA in history and in government from the University of Texas. She received her JD from the University of Texas School of Law. Upon graduation, she clerked for the Honorable George Kazen.

She has had a very successful career. Judge Saldana has been a staff attorney in the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a trial attorney with the Department of Justice, and served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Texas. She was appointed to be a U.S. magistrate judge in 2006.

Judge Saldana was nominated by the President on July 14, 2010. She was rated unanimously well qualified by the American Bar Association.

I am pleased to support Judge Saldana's nomination to this very important seat. Not only has it been deemed to be a judicial emergency but it is also the seat to which her mentor, Judge Kazen, previously occupied.

Mr. President, I also support Paul Kinloch Holmes III, a nominee to be a U.S. district judge for the Western District of Arkansas. A graduate of Westminster College and the University of Arkansas School of Law, Mr. Holmes has been rated unanimously well qualified by the American Bar Association.

After graduating from law school, Mr. Holmes became an associate at the law firm of Warner & Smith, a firm that focused on general civil practice. On August 6, 1993, President Clinton nominated him to be the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Arkansas. The Senate confirmed his nomination shortly after, and he served his role with distinction until 2001. Since then, Mr. Holmes has been in private practice handling both criminal and civil litigation.

Again, I am pleased to support the nomination of Mr. Holmes to this seat that has been deemed a judicial emergency.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have the sad task today of paying tribute to Specialist Shawn A. Muhr of Coon Rapids, IA, who has fallen in the line of duty in Afghanistan. Specialist Muhr was serving with the 546th Transportation Company, 264th Combat Sustainment Support Battalion, 82nd Sustainment Brigade out of Fort Bragg, NC. He was 26 years old.

Shawn's family described him as ``a gentle person with an adventurous

spirit.'' He is remembered fondly as a happy and generous individual, and I know his loss will be felt very keenly by all who knew him. My thoughts and prayers will be with his family at this time, including his wife Winifred, his father David, and his mother Shirley as well as his brother and sisters.

By all accounts, Specialist Muhr liked being in the Army and loved serving his country. He had previously served in Operation Iraqi Freedom as well as in South Korea and was serving his first tour in Afghanistan. What would we do without individuals like Shawn Muhr? Those young people who gladly serve their country, knowing the sacrifices they will be asked to make and the tremendous risk they take, are the ultimate bulwark in defense of our freedom. Shawn Muhr truly lived and died by the motto of the great State of Iowa, ``Our Liberties We Prize, Our Rights We Will Maintain.''

Madam President, I rise to support the Wyden-Grassley- McCaskill public hold proposal. I apologize to my two colleagues from Oregon and Missouri that I was not on the floor at the proper time. It is all my fault.

I am pleased to see this day come where the Senate will finally have the opportunity for an up-or-down vote on our freestanding Senate resolution to require public disclosure of holds. Senator Wyden and I have been at this for a long time. We have made progress at times, and we have also had many disappointments where things did not quite work out the way we had hoped and what we thought the Senate had spoken on through even rollcall votes.

It has also been good to have Senator McCaskill join us in helping push this issue to the forefront easily. She did that--I shouldn't say ``easily'' but recently because it has not been easy. Ending secret holds seems like a simple matter, doesn't it. But that has not proved to be the case because secret holds are an informal process. It is easier said than done to push them out into the open using formal Senate procedures. It is kind of like trying to wrestle down a greased hog. However, after a lot of thought and effort, two committee hearings, and many careful revisions, I think this resolution does a pretty good job of accomplishing our simple goal. That goal is to bring some more transparency into how the Senate does its business and, with transparency, more accountability.

This is not the only proposal we are considering today related to Senate procedure, and I do not want there to be any confusion. This proposal is not about altering any balance of power between the majority party and the minority party; neither does our resolution alter the rights of any of the 100 Members of this Senate.

Over the time I have been working on this issue, I have occasionally encountered arguments purporting to defend the need for secret holds. However, the arguments invariably focus on the legitimacy of holds, not on the subject of secrecy. I want to be very clear that secrecy is my only target and the only thing this resolution eliminates. I fully support the fundamental right of individual Senators to hold or withhold his or her consent when unanimous consent is requested. Senators are not obligated to give their consent to anything they do not want to, and no Senator is entitled to get any other Senator's consent to their motion.

I think the best way to describe what we seek to do with this resolution is to explain historically how holds came into being, as Senators have heard me do before.

In the old days, when Senators conducted much of their business in a daily way from their desks on the Senate floor, it was a simple matter to stand up and say ``I object'' when necessary. These days, most Senators spend most of their time off the Senate floor. We are required to spend time in committee hearings, meetings with constituents, and attending to other duties that keep us away from this Chamber. As a result, we rely on our respective party leaders in the Senate to protect our rights and prerogatives as individual Senators by asking them to object on our behalf.

Just as any Senator has the right to stand up on the Senate floor and publicly say ``I object,'' it is perfectly legitimate to ask another Senator to object on our behalf if we cannot make it to the floor when consent is requested. By the same token, Senators have no inherent right to have others object on their behalf while keeping their identity secret. If a Senator has a legitimate reason to object to proceeding to a bill or nominee, then he or she ought to have the guts to do so publicly.

We need have no fear of being held accountable by our constituents if we are acting in their interest as we were elected to do. Transparency is essential for accountability, and accountability is an essential component of our constitutional system. Transparency and accountability are also vital for the public to have faith in their government. As I have said many times, the people's business ought to be done in public. In my view, that principle is at stake.

I see my colleague from Oregon. If he will indulge me, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Oregon to get his thoughts as well.

Absolutely correct. One of the defects of the watered- down secret holds provision that was included in the ethics reform bill in the 110th Congress was that it allowed for large windows of secrecy before disclosure was required. Our resolution states that the leaders shall recognize holds placed with them only if two conditions are met: if the Senator first submits the notice of intent to object in writing to the appropriate leader and grants in the notice of intent to object permission for the leader or designee to object in the Senator's name and, secondly, not later than 2 session days after submitting the notice of intent to object to the appropriate leader, submits a copy of the notice of intent to object to the Congressional Record and to the legislative clerk for inclusion in the applicable calendar section.

It certainly does. Even if the process we talked about is not followed, once a hold comes to light in the form of an objection, someone will be required to own up to that hold. It will no longer be possible for a leader or their designee to object but claim it is not their objection. They can say on whose behalf they are objecting and why not.

We also require Senators placing a hold to give their permission to object in their name. Still, if a Senator objects and does not name another Senator as having the objection, and another Senator does not promptly come

forward claiming the objection, the Senator making the objection will be listed in the relative section of the Senate calendar as having placed that hold.

I yield, for a final conclusion, to the Senator from Oregon.

My colleague is correct and that is pretty straightforward. The Notice of Intent to Object calendar should reflect all of the matter necessary to understand holds. If no other Senator has come forth and claimed the objection, then the Senator who actually made the objection should be credited with holding the matter objected to. It is also worth noting that this approach saves a Senator who actually made an open objection on the floor on his or her own behalf the trouble of filing the ``Notice of Intent to Object'' with the clerk.

I agree. If something has passed the Senate, then obviously it is not being held. The Notice of Intent to Object calendar should be updated to reflect that development. Some of my colleagues have raised another small wrinkle on this issue with me--what if the matter passes after an objection has been made but before the 2 session days have elapsed? It seems to me that in that case, the clerk does not need to go through the ministerial motion of adding an item to the Notice of Intent to Object calendar, only to immediately remove it. Again, if a matter has passed the Senate, there obviously is no hold.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, the time has come to end secrecy on

the floor of the Senate. The time has come for Senators who think they ought to put a hold on a bill to be able to continue to put a hold on a bill or a nomination, but it is also time to show that you have guts enough to let the people know who you are and, more importantly, to let your colleagues know who you are. So if there is something wrong with a piece of legislation or a nomination, we can find out what it is and move the business of the Senate ahead.

This is something that is going to make the Senate a much more efficient place to work and get the people's business done, and it will do what is most important--the public's business in public.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Senator Baucus and I first introduced a bill to ban patents for tax inventions in the 110th Congress. Since then, we have worked with the leaders of the Judiciary Committee, the Patent and Trademark Office, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, industry, and members of the patent bar to perfect the language. I am pleased to introduce this new and improved bill today with Senators Baucus, Levin, Wyden, Bingaman, Conrad, Enzi, and Kerry.

There are strong policy reasons to ban tax strategy patents. Tax strategy patents may lead to the marketing of aggressive tax shelters or otherwise mislead taxpayers about expected results. Tax strategy patents encumber the ability of taxpayers and their advisers to use the tax law freely, interfering with the voluntary tax compliance system. If firms or individuals were able to hold patents for these strategies, some taxpayers could face fees simply for complying with the Tax Code. And, tax patents provide windfalls to lawyers and patent holders by granting them exclusive rights to use tax loopholes, which could provide some businesses with an unfair advantage.

Tax strategy patents are unlikely to be novel given the public nature of the Tax Code. Moreover, tax strategy patents may undermine the fairness of the Federal tax system by removing from the public domain particular ways of satisfying a taxpayer's legal obligations. The Equal Access to Tax Planning Act expressly provides that a strategy for reducing, avoiding or deferring tax liability cannot be considered a new or nonobvious idea, and therefore, a patent on a tax strategy cannot be obtained. This ensures that all taxpayers will have equal access to strategies to comply with the Tax Code. I encourage support for this bill.

Mr. President, Senator Baucus and I first introduced a bill to ban patents for tax inventions in the 110th Congress. Since then, we have worked with the leaders of the Judiciary Committee, the Patent and Trademark Office, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, industry, and members of the patent bar to perfect the language. I am pleased to introduce this new and improved bill today with Senators Baucus, Levin, Wyden, Bingaman, Conrad, Enzi, and Kerry.

There are strong policy reasons to ban tax strategy patents. Tax strategy patents may lead to the marketing of aggressive tax shelters or otherwise mislead taxpayers about expected results. Tax strategy patents encumber the ability of taxpayers and their advisers to use the tax law freely, interfering with the voluntary tax compliance system. If firms or individuals were able to hold patents for these strategies, some taxpayers could face fees simply for complying with the Tax Code. And, tax patents provide windfalls to lawyers and patent holders by granting them exclusive rights to use tax loopholes, which could provide some businesses with an unfair advantage.

Tax strategy patents are unlikely to be novel given the public nature of the Tax Code. Moreover, tax strategy patents may undermine the fairness of the Federal tax system by removing from the public domain particular ways of satisfying a taxpayer's legal obligations. The Equal Access to Tax Planning Act expressly provides that a strategy for reducing, avoiding or deferring tax liability cannot be considered a new or nonobvious idea, and therefore, a patent on a tax strategy cannot be obtained. This ensures that all taxpayers will have equal access to strategies to comply with the Tax Code. I encourage support for this bill.

Madam President, my colleagues and any of the public watching the debate today know there is a great partisan divide thus far. Senator Wyden has already referred to the motion he and I are putting before the Senate. Senator Wyden, a Democrat, and I, a Republican, are joined also by Senator McCaskill, who is the Presiding Officer now, as well as Senator Collins, in this effort. It is the only bipartisan issue before the Senate this particular day. I emphasize that because I think the public ought to know that not everything in the Senate is partisan.

Senator Wyden and I have been chipping away at the informal, backroom process known as secret holds in the Senate. We have been working on this for well over 10 years. So it should not surprise anybody that we are back again at the start of another Congress, joined, as I said, by Senator McCaskill of Missouri, who was very helpful in our pushing this issue to the forefront at the end of the last Congress, and, as I said, I am pleased that we have Senator Collins onboard again.

There has been a lot of talk lately about the possibility of far- reaching reforms to how the Senate does business that have been hastily conceived and could shift the traditional balance between the rights of the majority and the rights of the minority parties.

In contrast, our resolution by Senator Wyden and this Senator is neither of those two things. In other words, it does not shift any balance between the majority and the minority.

This resolution is well thought out, a bipartisan reform effort that has been the subject of two committee hearings and numerous careful revisions over several years. In no way does it alter the balance of power between the minority and majority parties, nor does it change any rights of any individual Senator. This is simply about transparency, and with transparency you get a great deal of accountability.

I wish to be very clear that I fully support the fundamental right of any individual Senator to withhold his consent when unanimous consent is requested. In the old days when Senators conducted much of their daily business from their desks on the Senate floor and were on the Senate floor for most of the day, it was quite a simple matter for any Senator at that time to stand up and say ``I object'' when necessary, if they really objected to a unanimous consent request, and that was it. That stopped it. Now, since most Senators spend most of their time off the Senate floor because of the obligation of committee hearings, the obligation of meeting with constituents, and a lot of other obligations we have, we now tend to rely upon our majority leader in the case of the Democrats or the minority leader in the case of the Republicans to protect our rights, privileges, and prerogatives as individual Senators by asking those leaders or their substitutes to object on our behalf.

Just as any Senator has the right to stand on the Senate floor and publicly say ``I object,'' it is perfectly legitimate to ask another Senator to object on our behalf if he cannot make it to the floor when unanimous consent is requested. By the same token, Senators have no inherent right to have others object on their behalf while at the same time keeping their identity secret, thus shielding their legislative actions from the public, because that is not transparency and it is obviously not being accountable.

What I object to is not the use of the word ``holds'' or the process of holding up something in the Senate, but I object to what is called secret holds. The adjective ``secret'' is what we are fighting. If a Senator has a legitimate reason to object to proceeding to a bill or a nominee, then he or she ought to have the guts to do so publicly.

A Senator may object because he does not agree to the substance of a bill and therefore cannot in good conscience grant consent or because the Senator has not had adequate opportunity to review the matter at hand. Regardless, we should have no fear of being held accountable by our constituents if we are acting in their interest, as we are elected to do. I have practiced publicly announcing my holds for many years, and it has not hurt one bit. In fact, some of the Senators who are most conscientious about protecting their prerogatives to review legislation before granting consent to its consideration or passage are also quite public about it.

In short, there is no legitimate reason for any Senator, if they place a hold, to have that hold be secret.

How does our proposal achieve transparency and the resultant accountability? In our proposed standing order, for the majority or minority leader to recognize a hold, the Senator placing the hold must get a statement in the Record within 1 session day and must give permission to their leader at the time they place the hold to object in their name, not in the name of the leader. Since the leader will automatically have permission to name the Senator on whose behalf they are objecting, there will no longer be any expectation or pressure on the leader to keep the hold secret.

Further, if a Senator objects to a unanimous consent request and does not name another Senator as having the objection, then the objecting Senator will be listed as having the hold. This will end entirely, once and for all, the situation where one Senator objects but is able to remain very coy about whether it is their own objection or some unnamed Senator. All objections will have to be owned up to.

Again, our proposal protects the rights of individual Senators to withhold their consent while ensuring transparency and public accountability. In Congress, as well as almost anyplace in the Federal Government--except maybe national security issues--the public's business always ought to be public and the people who are involved in the public's business ought to stand behind their actions. As I have repeatedly said, the Senate's business ought to be done more in the public than it is, and most of it is public, but this secret hold puts a mystery about things going on in Washington that hurts the credibility of the institution.

This principle of accountability and transparency is a principle that I think the vast majority, if not all, of Senators can get behind. I believe the time has come for this simple, commonsense reform.

I yield the floor. Under the UC, if it is permissible to retain the remainder of our time, I do that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as we begin the 112th Congress I want to discuss one of my continuing concerns with the Medicare Program. For the last 10 years, I have served most recently as ranking member and previously as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, which has jurisdiction over Medicare. During this time I have led efforts to reform the Medicare payment system and realign incentives in Medicare to promote higher quality and more efficient care. Today, I would like to address one of the flaws in the Medicare payment system: the inaccuracy of the Medicare geographic adjustment factors used for physician practice expense and the adverse impact they have on rural Medicare beneficiaries' access to care. This flaw has for many years resulted in unfairly low payments to high quality areas like my own home State of Iowa and many other rural States.

Medicare payment varies from one area to another based on the geographic adjustments known as the geographic practice cost indices or GPCIs. These geographic adjustments are intended to equalize physician payment by reflecting differences in physician's practice costs. But they do not accurately represent those costs in Iowa or other rural States. They have failed to do the job. They penalize rather than equalize Medicare reimbursement in rural States and discourage physicians from practicing in areas like New Mexico, Arkansas, Missouri, and Iowa because of their unfairly low Medicare rates. Iowa is widely recognized as providing some of the highest quality care in the country yet Iowa physicians receive some of the lowest Medicare reimbursement in the country due to these inequitable geographic disparities.

I introduced legislation to correct these unwarranted geographic payment disparities in the 110th Congress, the Medicare Physician Payment Equity Act of 2008. In the 111th Congress, I introduced the Medicare Rural Health Access Improvement Act of 2009. And when the Senate Finance Committee conducted its markup of health reform legislation in the fall of 2009, I offered an amendment to reform the practice expense geographic adjustment, PE GPCI, that has caused unduly low payments in rural areas due to the inaccurate data and methodology that is used. My amendment provided more equity and accuracy in calculating this adjustment, and it provided a national solution to the problem. It was accepted unanimously by the Senate Finance Committee, and it was included in the Senate health reform bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PPACA, that was enacted last year.

The goal of my amendment was to assure that the statutory mandate of the Social Security Act is met and that the most recent and relevant data is used for these geographic adjusters. The language of section 3102(b) is very

specific. It requires a transitional 2-year period of limited relief to reduce the impact of the current, inequitable practice expense formula in rural areas while a broader analysis of the methodology and evaluation of the data is conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS. The Secretary is mandated to limit the impact of the existing adjustments by reflecting only one-half of the geographic differences in employee wages and rents in the PE GPCI adjustment for 2010 and 2011 and to hold harmless those localities that would otherwise see a reduction as a result of this adjustment. Most importantly, the provision requires that a longer term solution be implemented in 2012, at which time the Secretary must make appropriate adjustments to the formula to ensure accurate geographic practice expense adjustments.

This 2-year transition in 2010 and 2011 was provided to allow time for a focused, in-depth study by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, on the data and methodology used to support a revised PE GPCI formula that would be implemented by January 1, 2012. However, to date CMS has failed to make any significant changes in the sources of the data or the methodology used in calculation of the practice expense adjustment. Although CMS has acknowledged its obligations for an additional study as called for by section 3102(b), they continue to claim that their ``analysis of the current methods of establishing PE GPCIs and [their] evaluation of data that fairly and reliably establish distinctions in the cost of operating a medical practice in the different fee schedule areas meet the statutory requirements'' of section 3102(b), Federal Register, November 29, 2010, Page 73254. I strongly disagree.

When the current Medicare payment system was established, Congress decided that geographic adjustments would be appropriate to equalize physician payment by reflecting differences in physicians' practice costs, and it established the geographic practice cost indices, GPCIs, for physician work, practice expenses, and malpractice premiums. Congress also mandated that HHS use the most recent data available relating to practice expenses in calculating the geographic adjustments for physician practice costs.

However, CMS has long relied upon proxy data sources that bear little to no relevance to actual practice costs, such as using Housing and Urban Development, HUD, apartment rental data to calculate physician office rent. This doesn't have any connection with the cost of office space, let alone a physician's office. Also, the current formula only counts employee wages in four occupations: nurses, clerical personnel and medical technicians but it should reflect employee wages more accurately by also taking into account physician assistants, office administrators, and other more highly compensated specialists commonly employed in practices today. The third category, of ``other'' expense, is considered to be a national market and not adjusted. It should include expenses like office furniture and information technology that cost the same, no matter where you live, but it doesn't. And the weights used by CMS in their methodology are outdated and fail to represent physician practice expenses accurately.

Unfortunately, the more accurate calculation of practice expense costs that was intended to be achieved by my amendment also has been jeopardized by a special interest provision that was added to PPACA behind the closed doors of the majority leader during the Senate floor consideration of health reform. It addresses geographic disparities in Medicare payment but it helps just 5 States at the expense of the other 45 States. It is what I call the ``Frontier Freeloader'' provision. It improves Medicare reimbursement in these frontier States by establishing floors for the hospital wage index and the physician practice expense GPCI. A frontier State is defined as one with 50 percent or more frontier counties, defined as counties with a population per square mile of less than six.

This special deal will ensure that higher payments go to just five rural States in 2011--North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming and Nevada--at the expense of every other State. But the Frontier Freeloader is even more egregious because Iowa and other States like Arkansas and New Mexico that don't benefit from this provision are paying for it! So, taxpayers in your State and mine all the other 45 States--will kick in to pay for this unfair $2 billion Frontier Freeloader carve-out for five States that ends up harming all the other rural States. And that is just the cost for the next few years. The frontier States deal does not sunset, and it is not time-limited. It will continue to benefit so-called ``frontier States'' forever while taxpayers in your State and mine continue to pay the bills. It's another example of how the lack of transparency and the deals made behind closed doors to garner votes last year led to bad policies. And it became law when the President signed the health care reform bill.

I introduced legislation to eliminate the inequitable frontier freeloader provision in the last Congress and to improve Medicare beneficiaries' access to care in all rural States. The Medicare Rural Health Care Equity Act of 2010 would have eliminated this special Medicare reimbursement rate for frontier States and provided additional funds from its repeal to improve reimbursement in all rural States. Iowa provides some of the highest quality care in the country but it does not meet the definition of a frontier State. Certainly Iowa should have been helped since Medicare reimbursement for hospitals and physicians is lower in Iowa than in most of these so-called ``frontier'' States. Medicare also pays much lower rates in other rural States, like Arkansas and New Mexico, but they don't benefit from the Frontier Freeloader because they don't meet the definition of a frontier State. We should improve physician payments for all rural States, not just a select few. And it's unfair to improve hospital payments for just a few States. My legislation would have eliminated those special payments for just five States, and I will be reintroducing that legislation again soon.

The Institute of Medicine, IOM, has been asked by HHS to evaluate the accuracy of the existing geographic adjustment factors and whether the current measures and data are representative of the costs. I have prepared a statement for consideration by the IOM committee charged with this review, the Committee on Geographic Adjustment Factors in the Medicare Program. I urge the IOM to address the inaccuracy of the current geographic adjusters used for physician practice expense, the methodology and data used in their calculation, and the adverse effect of the existing practice expense geographic adjustment factor on rural access to care. I also urge IOM to review the frontier States provision and provide HHS and Congress with recommendations on specific factors that could be used to determine physician practice costs in those States in lieu of the inequitable frontier States floor.

It is my hope that the IOM will carefully consider these comments as it proceeds with its review and develops recommendations and a report to be submitted to HHS and the Congress later this year. I ask unanimous consent that my statement to the IOM be printed in the Record.

Madam President, before I begin my remarks on the New START treaty, I would like to point out to my colleagues that in 2002, I voted in favor of the Moscow Treaty. I was also one of 93 Senators who voted in favor of START I in 1992.

I recognize the importance of maintaining a positive and cooperative relationship with Russia. The proponents of the New START treaty argue that this treaty is necessary to continue the goodwill between our countries and the much-touted ``reset'' in our relations. More importantly to me, however, are the merits of the treaty itself. The Senate should not simply ratify this treaty to appease Russia or as a signal of cooperation with them. The treaty should be considered based on its impact on our national security and the security of our allies.

A nuclear arms control treaty can be evaluated based on the level of parity it brings to the two parties. In this regard, I believe this treaty falls short. The fact is, while this treaty places new limits on warheads, as well as deployed and nondeployed delivery vehicles, Russia is already below the limit on delivery vehicles. The treaty primarily imposes new limits on the U.S., while requiring modest, if any, reductions on the Russian side. Also alarming is that this treaty is silent on the matter of tactical nuclear weapons. It is believed that Russia has a 10-to-1 advantage over the U.S. in terms of tactical nuclear weapons.

The administration has argued that this treaty is necessary to provide strategic stability. However, if we are reducing our strategic weapons without regard to Russia's overwhelming advantage on tactical nuclear weapons, I question whether this reduction isn't weakening strategic stability. It should also be mentioned that some proponents of the New START treaty were critical of the 2002 Moscow Treaty for failing to reduce Russian tactical nuclear weapons. I believe our leverage with the Russians to begin placing meaningful limits on tactical nuclear weapons existed with this treaty. Now, I see no clear path to negotiating reductions in tactical nuclear weapons.

Like many of my colleagues, I have serious concerns about the inclusion of references to and limitations on U.S. plans for missile defense. I don't believe there should be a connection between strategic nuclear weapons reductions and our plans for missile defense. I am equally troubled that Russia issued a unilateral statement at the treaty's signing stating that the treaty ``may be effective and viable only in conditions where there is no qualitative or quantitative build- up in the missile defense system capabilities of the United States of America.''

It is positive that the Resolution of Ratification makes a strong statement that the treaty does not limit the deployment of U.S. missile defense systems, other than those contained in article V. It also says that the Russian statement on missile defense does not impose a legal obligation on the United States. While I would have preferred that this treaty not contain any language on missile defense, I appreciate the work of the Foreign Relations chairman and ranking member to include this language in the ratification resolution. But the fact remains, this language is simply our opinion and is nonbinding.

This treaty reverses the gains made in the Moscow Treaty which de- linked offensive and defensive capabilities. Although a modified amendment on missile defense to the resolution of ratification was agreed to today, I am disappointed that the Senate could not agree to the amendment offered by Senator McCain which would have stricken the language in the treaty's preamble that arguably gives Russia a say on our future missile defense plans.

Finally, I also share the serious concerns related to the issue of verification. It has been the subject of much debate, and deservedly so. I agree with the sentiment that as our deployed strategic nuclear weapons are reduced, it becomes more and more critical that the remaining weapons can be relied upon. As the number of weapons is reduced, it becomes more important that we know that the Russians are abiding by the limits of the treaty.

After reviewing the classified material presented by Senator Bond, ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have serious reservations about the new verification regime contained in the treaty. Although former Secretary of State James Baker supports ratification of the treaty, he stated that the verification mechanism in the New START treaty ``does not appear as rigorous or extensive as the one that verified the numerous and diverse treaty obligations and prohibitions under START I.''

I do regret that without a treaty in place that there is no verification regime, and no U.S. inspectors monitoring Russia's nuclear arms activities. It's important to point out, however, that the Obama administration had the ability to extend the verification regime for 5 years, as provided for in START I. But the Obama administration failed to act. The administration also insisted there would be a ``bridging agreement'' to continue verification until the entry into force of a successor agreement. This agreement was never completed either.

I am deeply disappointed that in these areas of concern, the Senate is simply being asked to be a ``rubberstamp'' rather than fulfill our constitutional obligation to provide our advice on these important matters. Had the advice of the Senate on these important issues been incorporated into the treaty, I believe it would have gained overwhelming bipartisan support. Without addressing these areas in a meaningful way, I am reluctantly unable to support it.

Mr. President, it is with great sadness and concern that I report that more and more kids are turning to drugs. Recently released annual studies that track drug use trends among youth and adults are indicating rapid increases in drug use among all age groups. The most recent National Survey on Drug Use and Health indicates drug use among people aged 12 and older increased by 9 percent since 2008. According to this survey, over 7 million people in the past year are estimated to have used drugs. Among these

numbers, it is estimated that over 4 million people have abused marijuana, which is well over half of all drug abusers in this survey.

Even more disturbing are the rapid increases in drug use among America's youth. New figures from the Monitoring the Future Study, which is conducted by the University of Michigan and surveys school age kids' drug use from 8th grade to 12th grade, have shot up significantly. The rapid increases are due to higher use rates of marijuana among all age groups. Among the youngest surveyed, marijuana use jumped to 16 percent from 14.5 percent in the past year. Marijuana use has increased so much among high school seniors that more are now smoking marijuana than tobacco in the past 30 days. According to this survey, more than one in three high school seniors have smoked marijuana in the past year. Also troubling are the increases in the use of ecstasy, heroin, and the ongoing high abuse rates of prescription and over-the-counter medicines. On top of all this, the survey also determined that accompanying the increased drug use was a decreased perception that drugs are harmful.

In my home State of Iowa, the Governor's Office of Drug Control Policy reports in their 2011 Drug Control Strategy that marijuana continues to be the most abused illegal drug in Iowa. According to this report, nearly two-thirds of all children in substance abuse treatment are there for marijuana use. It is reported that these are the highest rates of marijuana-using treatment clients in recent Iowa history. The 2008 Iowa youth survey also shows that over one in four Iowa 11th graders have used marijuana in the past year.

It is easy to read these numbers but not fully grasp the magnitude of what is happening in this country. Dr. Nora Volkow, the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, states that the earlier teenagers start using marijuana the greater the risk they will have down the road. Dr. Volkow states, ``Not only does marijuana affect learning, judgment, and motor skills, but research tells us that about 1 in 6 people who start using it as adolescents become addicted.'' The more we have young people turning to drugs the more they are putting their health and futures on the line. Not only do these numbers suggest more young people are putting themselves at risk, but they also show that the future of the country is at risk. These numbers are completely unacceptable and they illustrate that we are failing our kids.

How did we get to this point? The National Survey on Drug Use and Health stated that while their findings are disappointing, they were not unexpected. The survey reported that data from the past two years have shown that young people's attitudes about drugs and their risks have been ``softening.'' This means that kids are more and more coming to the conclusion that drug use really isn't as bad as it is made out to be. The Monitoring the Future Survey also indicates that young people's perceptions on drug use, especially the harms associated with marijuana use, are rapidly moving in a negative direction. The survey states, ``Increases in youth drug use . . . are disappointing, and mixed messages about drug legalization--particularly of marijuana--may be contributing to the trend. Such messages only hinder the efforts of parents who are trying to prevent their kids from using drugs.'' Dr. Volkow also agrees that the debate over legalizing marijuana is contributing to the rising youth drug abuse rates. Dr. Volkow states, ``We should examine the extent to which the debate over medical marijuana and marijuana legalization for adults is affecting teens' perceptions of risk.''

The Obama administration also appears to agree with the above conclusions. The national drug czar, Gil Kerlikowski, who is Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy states, ``The increases in youth drug use . . . are disappointing. And mixed messages about drug legalization, particularly marijuana legalization, may be to blame. Such messages certainly don't help parents who are trying to prevent young people from using drugs.'' I could not agree more with this statement. However, I can't help but feel that this administration is contributing to the problem and not the solution.

In October 2009, the Department of Justice issued a memorandum to all U.S. attorneys regarding the prosecution of individuals who use or sell marijuana for medical purposes in states that allow it. This new policy states that U.S. attorneys should not expend resources to prosecute individuals who are complying with State laws regarding selling, possession, and use of marijuana for medical purposes. These State laws are in direct conflict with long existing Federal laws. The memorandum also states that this new policy will not alter the Department's authority to enforce Federal law.

This confusing policy attempts to have it both ways. The DOJ is telling U.S. attorneys that they should not prosecute people in States that allow medical marijuana, but the policy does not prevent them from doing so. This policy is a departure from the longstanding DOJ position to prosecute individuals who violate Federal law notwithstanding State law. This policy is ill advised, misguided, and internally inconsistent. It also sends the wrong message that this administration is deciding which laws it would prefer to enforce rather than upholding and aggressively enforcing all existing laws.

Unfortunately, the mixed messages don't stop there. Just a few weeks ago, the Judiciary Committee took up the nomination of Michelle Leonhart to be Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration. Following her hearing, I asked a pretty straight forward question, did she support efforts to decriminalize or legalize the use, production, or distribution of marijuana, for medical purposes or otherwise. I was disappointed when I received her response that simply stated, ``I support the Administration in its clear and steadfast opposition to the legalization of marijuana.'' While I agree that the administration should be ``clear and steadfast'' in opposing the legalization of marijuana, her answers did not address the issue of decriminalization. In fact, it took a follow-up letter from me to Ms. Leonhart to clarify this response where she finally stated she was ``concerned with any actions that would lead to increased use of abuse and therefore, do[es] not support decriminalizing the cultivation, distribution, and use of marijuana for any purpose other than legitimate research.'' While I appreciate this more detailed response, it raises questions as to why this more comprehensive answer wasn't part of her initial response to my question. It is this sort of inconsistent response to simple questions on drug use that is sending mixed messages to minors across the county regarding the legalization and decriminalization of marijuana.

We should not be getting mixed messages on marijuana use. The Obama administration should send a strong, unequivocal message to kids that marijuana use is harmful, rather than issuing inconsistent statements and new policies that endorse State efforts to legalize marijuana use in certain instances.

I have long supported a unified, and consistent antidrug message combined with grassroots community efforts to combat drug abuse in all forms. Kids need to constantly hear the message that drug use is harmful and not safe. They need to hear it from all sectors of the community whether it comes from home, school, or anywhere else. That is why I continually support local community antidrug coalitions. These coalitions are on the front lines in communities and are probably our best weapon in the fight against drug abuse. The people who comprise these coalitions care deeply about their communities and they should be supported in their efforts.

If the Obama administration truly believes that the rise in youth drug use is blamed in part on sending mixed messages about marijuana then they need to reconsider their own actions. We need to recognize the importance of sending strong and united messages about marijuana and drug use at large. We can start by being consistent with our own words and actions. Perhaps then we may be able to start to reverse the rising trends in youth drug use that have occurred since President Obama took office.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for about 7 minutes as in morning business.

I yield the floor.